The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

27 minutes ago, Steve How Hard? said:

Think they misspelled his surname so I've corrected it for them. 

It’s bad enough you get ignorant trolls on social media. When it turns out they are stealing a living in mainstream media as well it’s even worse.

[May Contain Nuts]

23 minutes ago, Curtains said:

How long does the embargo go on for EFL !

Another 2 years after we're taken over, disguised as an agreed business plan

Edited February 9, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[Yani P]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It’s bad enough you get ignorant trolls on social media. When it turns out they are stealing a living in mainstream media as well it’s even worse.

Creative with the truth Director..

[Day]

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But club disputes can only arise where there is a contract between them. Boro and wycombe are trying to create a dispute between them and us . Over something where the only duty is from us to the EFL. 

Like a transfer deal bad. One club fails to make payments or whatever it is that was stated in the agreement.

This is when arbitration rules kick in.

Saying that, how often do you even see arbitration between clubs? Not exactly a common occurrence is it.

[kevinhectoring]

29 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And I think I did point out that the so called precedent , the tevez case , only worked because West Ham and Sheffield Utd were both in the Premier League at the time.

so it’s not a precedent at all.

there is no precedent for clubs in the Efl suing each other. And there’s a reason for that. Because they can’t. And if they could that would be the end of the football league .. after a brief beano for the legal profession. 

 

If clubs can't sue each other, what do you and @David reckon this rule means: ? 

 

95           Agreement to Arbitrate

95.1        Membership of The League shall constitute an agreement in writing ... between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

95.1.1    to submit those disputes described out in Regulation 95.2 to final and binding arbitration ... ;

...

95.2        The following disputes fall to be resolved under this Section of the Regulations:

....

95.2.5   disputes between ... each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’)

[Day]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

If clubs can't sue each other, what do you and @David reckon this rule means: ? 

 

95           Agreement to Arbitrate

95.1        Membership of The League shall constitute an agreement in writing ... between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

95.1.1    to submit those disputes described out in Regulation 95.2 to final and binding arbitration ... ;

...

95.2        The following disputes fall to be resolved under this Section of the Regulations:

....

95.2.5   disputes between ... each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’)

See the post above I just made. It's when a contract exists between clubs, a transfer for example, or loan. 

[Grumpy Git]

Anyone else totally and utterly fed-up to the back teeth with this yet?

[Day]

Just now, Grumpy Git said:

Anyone else totally and utterly fed-up to the back teeth with this yet?

[Woodley Ram]

8 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Last paragraph discloses the apparent secret EFL agenda of appeasement - on behalf of MFC - that the EFL has within their ability, actions and inactions (if not power), to cause, finally and fatefully, the expected or assured relegation of DCFC.

I am calling it "Constructive Relegation"; it's an EFL parallel to how employers behave (and eventually get found out of, at Tribunals) when they want to make an unwanted employees' job tenure unpleasant, impossible, frustrating - leading to the person ultimately leaving the job, and then taking it up as a claim and legal grievance.

The EFL needs to deny DCFC' Championship status somehow, to appease the parasites and those who demonise an already-punished club, and who, disgustingly, appear to have a chance of overcoming all penalties.

This is quite evident, when you look at the DCFC / EFL timeline, without being exhaustive...

* Two years of drawn-out embargoes and the emergence of the EFL dispute with MFC as a motivation to deplete DCFC over and above P&S / FFP penalties.

* Use of the Chorley FA Cup teenage representatives to invoke 'professional player' status to restrict squad recruitment / retention

* Failure to apply EFL rules re: 3.5, 4.4, regarding club conduct and discredit / disrepute behaviours, by the parasite clubs 

* Publication of 'alternative' league fixture lists for DCFC & WW to swap League places in different divisions

* Publishing press releases and statements without reference to DCFC; expressing 'disappointment' about LAP/ IDC judgements

* Leakage of selective information to gutter press to stoke up the demonisation of DCFC

* Ambiguity of the status of the parasite claims in terms of creditor preference

* Blocking PB progress / discouraging bidders due to the above ambiguity

* Ensuring that admin and legal processes endure throughout the fifth (!) transfer window, in January 2022 in which DCFC has been embargoed.

* Due to blocking PB progress (and their £5m non-refundable funding deposit) and because of the parasite claim status ambiguity, impelling administrators to undertake desperate player disposals by DCFC, in order to facilitate instant cashflow demands

The EFL's attitude of deflection, obfuscation, delay and denial makes me very angry and will get called out, if we get relegated or (Heaven forbid) go into liquidation. Constructive relegation is not my paranoia - it is DCFC's ongoing nightmare, a gift from Parry to Gibson.

Last paragraph discloses the apparent secret EFL agenda of appeasement - on behalf of MFC - that the EFL has within their ability, actions and inactions (if not power), to cause, finally and fatefully, the expected or assured relegation of DCFC. Probably gone a bit far on this, no doubt MFC and the EFL want us relegated but collusion (which is illegal) ........feels like it, but no evidence

I am calling it "Constructive Relegation"; it's an EFL parallel to how employers behave (and eventually get found out of, at Tribunals) when they want to make an unwanted employees' job tenure unpleasant, impossible, frustrating - leading to the person ultimately leaving the job, and then taking it up as a claim and legal grievance. Also a bit far, we are not being given much leeway but its  a stretch to call it constructive (illegal)

The EFL needs to deny DCFC' Championship status somehow, to appease the parasites and those who demonise an already-punished club, and who, disgustingly, appear to have a chance of overcoming all penalties.It does feel like that

This is quite evident, when you look at the DCFC / EFL timeline, without being exhaustive...especially with the press releases between MFC and EFL

* Two years of drawn-out embargoes and the emergence of the EFL dispute with MFC as a motivation to deplete DCFC over and above P&S / FFP penalties. they were in their rights to do this

* Use of the Chorley FA Cup teenage representatives to invoke 'professional player' status to restrict squad recruitment / retention this is down to the FA and not EFL, infact the EFL overlooked those players that took part (as part of professional players/squad)

* Failure to apply EFL rules re: 3.5, 4.4, regarding club conduct and discredit / disrepute behaviours, by the parasite clubs pass

* Publication of 'alternative' league fixture lists for DCFC & WW to swap League places in different divisions That was very bad

* Publishing press releases and statements without reference to DCFC; expressing 'disappointment' about LAP/ IDC judgements agreed

* Leakage of selective information to gutter press to stoke up the demonisation of DCFC proof 

* Ambiguity of the status of the parasite claims in terms of creditor preference

* Blocking PB progress / discouraging bidders due to the above ambiguity

* Ensuring that admin and legal processes endure throughout the fifth (!) transfer window, in January 2022 in which DCFC has been embargoed.

* Due to blocking PB progress (and their £5m non-refundable funding deposit) and because of the parasite claim status ambiguity, impelling administrators to undertake desperate player disposals by DCFC, in order to facilitate instant cashflow demands cannot argue with that 

The EFL's attitude of deflection, obfuscation, delay and denial makes me very angry and will get called out, if we get relegated or (Heaven forbid) go into liquidation. Constructive relegation is not my paranoia - it is DCFC's ongoing nightmare, a gift from Parry to Gibson.

need to be careful in saying that anything criminal has taken place. I think that the whole saga is should be part of an independent investigation and potentially a criminal one.

[kevinhectoring]

18 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But club disputes can only arise where there is a contract between them.

but what about actions for libel, negligence, tortious interference with contractual rights, conspiracy, claims for restitution, claims arising out of criminal acts, breach of trust etc etc ?  None of these requires a contract to be in place (and as you know I think Gibbo will say there is one in place anyway) 

[Grumpy Git]

Just had a reply from my MP who has forwarded a letter she received from the Minister for Sport, I guess its a carbon copy of what others have also received?

 

 

"Thank you for your correspondence of 3 February, on behalf of your constituent, Mr Grumpy Git, regarding Derby County Football Club (FC).

I am replying as the Minister of Sport.

As you may be aware, the government continues to engage closely with the English Football League (EFL) about Derby County FC. I am in regular contact with the English Football League and have discussed the matter with the appointed administrators of Derby County FC. Ultimately, it is for the EFL, the administrator and the club to resolve issues to ensure the survival of Derby County FC, but the government has urged pragmatism from all parties to find a solution for the benefit of fans and the community that the club serves.

It is right that the EFL preserve the integrity of the league on behalf of all member clubs, however, I should stress that all parties want to see one of the founding members of the Football League continue this season and beyond under appropriate ownership.

The Fan Led Review of football governance made proposals directly addressing how to prevent clubs ending up in such difficult financial situations. We have endorsed in principle the primary recommendation of the review, that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure the future of our national game. The government is now working at pace to determine the most effective way to deliver an independent regulator, and any powers that might be needed.

Thank you again for your letter.

Nigel Huddlestone MP Minister for Sport, Tourism, Heritage and Civil Society"

 

 

Haven't done a word count, but there's an almighty overuse of electrons in that PDF.

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Grumpy Git

[Day]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

but what about actions for libel, negligence, tortious interference with contractual rights, conspiracy, claims for restitution, claims arising out of criminal acts, breach of trust etc etc ?  None of these requires a contract to be in place (and as you know I think Gibbo will say there is one in place anyway) 

One club can't libel another, this would be down to individuals that could be prosecuted. Rather than entertain the other possibilities I'll move on to how the EFL structure operates.

The 72 clubs vote on rules for the EFL to enforce for those competing in the 3 leagues.

Each club has the agreement between itself and the league to abide by those rules.

There is no bilateral agreement between clubs to compete.

Agreements can be made for the purposes of transfers for example, and when clubs feel the agreement has been broken, this is what arbitration is there for.

This is how the league operates, it just is.

What do you believe reg 4.4 is in place for, don't ignore what's written in the brackets as it's very relevant. It says that only the EFL can take action.

Why would it say that if clubs could go at each other?

Now I can't prove there is no bilateral agreements to compete in the league, I can't because they are not there.

The Premier League is different, and even states it in their about us page. This is why you have seen club v club legal cases.

 

[PistoldPete]

45 minutes ago, David said:

Liverpool v Boro over Ziege is another case, which again is the Premier League.

And also a contract dispute over a transfer  so fair game maybe. 
 

the only precedent it sets was the fact that Gibson found he could sue Parry and win.

[Woodypecker]

Woodley, I know my rant was provocative and not wholly substantiated - but IMHO, I'd like fans to focus more on some of these aspects of EFL and parasite conduct and to realise how we are being steered toward League One, or oblivion

Re: the timeline - when I mentioned the Chorley teenagers and their effect upon Wayne's summer recruitment / retention, I think that this WAS initially used by the EFL in early close-season (and then later  being commuted to the rule about 'number of appearances').

That early sanction meant that such as Wisdom, Clarke, Waghorn, for instance, were displaced or sought other clubs, and some prospective frees / loanees could not be signed.

PS: in the EFL rules it does mention that they can work in conjunction with FA regulations and processes, so there's a potential get-out route for Parry & Co to obscure or deny any cross-over of how clubs / players / entitlements might be viewed.

Making DCFC play Chorley in a 100% first-team Covid situation was disgraceful anyway, at the behest of the TV companies who smelled a 'giant-killing' wild dressing-room singalong for the mighty non-Leaguers - and in itself was a penalty on Derby, who might well have benefited from a tasty and lucrative 4th Round draw (yep; I know DCFC might just have wanted that game out of the way!)

Edited February 9, 2022 by Woodypecker

[Animal is a Ram]

 

[Day]

5 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

I'm not against this, just think that they will receive the standard we are aware of the proposal and looking into it.

Would love to see them pushing the regulations, seeing why they don't apply to this case. 

Having dismissed insolvency law it's no surprise, just think it would be worth hearing them answer it.

3.5 under membership and 4.4 under financial fair play @RamsfanJim

(apologies for sounding like a broken record everyone, just think it's information worthy of knowing)

[May Contain Nuts]

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And also a contract dispute over a transfer  so fair game maybe. 
 

the only precedent it sets was the fact that Gibson found he could sue Parry and win.

When I put it up as a conspiracy theory months ago (maybe even a year ago) that, looking back on their history, it would appear that Rick Parry now feels the need to somehow 'make it up' to Gibson for past wrongs I made sure to make it clear that it was just that - a conspiracy theory I didn't really believe, a caveat that it shouldn't be taken as a serious suggestion.

Suffice (it) to say, I'm having second thoughts.

[Day]

Just now, David said:

I'm not against this, just think that they will receive the standard we are aware of the proposal and looking into it.

Would love to see them pushing the regulations, seeing why they don't apply to this case. 

Having dismissed insolvency law it's no surprise, just think it would be worth hearing them answer it.

3.5 under membership and 4.4 under financial fair play @RamsfanJim

(apologies for sounding like a broken record everyone, just think it's information worthy of knowing)

Just as I post this, replied on Twitter to say they would 

 

[I know nuffin]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No, because the current wage bill is more than sustainable

A major problem in the past was having a wage bill greater than 100% of club revenue.

This is one of the points I struggle with. If with the loss of the 9 players we are down to sustainable levels why is EFL demanding proof we can last until the end of the session. If it is sustainable we can. On top of that we have had a bonus 33000 gate which must have generated 250k extra, plus TV on that. TV last night and Coventry coming up on TV. 3 home matches this month rather than the normal 2. A shop that is rammed full on match days. All this plus the money from the players gone. Why is that not enough to last until the end of the season

[ilkleyram]

19 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Woodley, I know my rant was provocative and not wholly substantiated - but IMHO, I'd like fans to focus more on some of these aspects of EFL and parasite conduct and to realise how we are being steered toward League One, or oblivion

Re: the timeline - when I mentioned the Chorley teenagers and their effect upon Wayne's summer recruitment / retention, I think that this WAS initially used by the EFL in early close-season (and then later  being commuted to the rule about 'number of appearances').

That early sanction meant that such as Wisdom, Clarke, Waghorn, for instance, were displaced or sought other clubs, and some prospective frees / loanees could not be signed.

PS: in the EFL rules it does mention that they can work in conjunction with FA regulations and processes, so there's a potential get-out route for Parry & Co to obscure or deny any cross-over of how clubs / players / entitlements might be viewed.

Making DCFC play Chorley in a 100% first-team Covid situation was disgraceful anyway, at the behest of the TV companies who smelled a 'giant-killing' wild dressing-room singalong for the mighty non-Leaguers - and in itself was a penalty on Derby, who might well have benefited from a tasty and lucrative 4th Round draw (yep; I know DCFC might just have wanted that game out of the way!)

TBF I would guess that the Chorley situation was the FA rather than the EFL as it was their competition.  

Mind, it's interesting that the FA as the governing body of all football in England hasn't yet made any public statement - that I've seen anyway - about our situation.  Given that we are former winners/finalists you would have thought they would have had some thoughts on the matter and maybe even some kind of mediation role